Johnson v. United States

Filing 14

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS 7 Complaint be DISMISSED. Objections to R&R due by 5/25/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 5/11/2017. (ew)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ROGER CARLTON JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action 2:16-cv-1064
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Jolson

UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On April 14, 2017, this Court issued an Order noting that there is no record that service
has been made upon Defendant. (Doc. 10). Consequently, the Court directed Plaintiff to show
good cause within fourteen days why this action should not be dismissed and why an extension
of time to effect service should be allowed. (Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)). Plaintiff filed a
response on April 21, 2017. (Doc. 11).
In an April 24, 2017 Order, the Court allowed Plaintiff a limited extension of time to
effect service until May 4, 2017. (Doc. 12). The Court informed Plaintiff that, although he is
proceeding pro se, he is required nevertheless to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
this Court’s Local Rules. (Id. at 1). The Court also directed Plaintiff to Rule 4(i) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs service of process in cases where the United States is
named as a defendant. (Id.). Finally, the Court warned Plaintiff that if he failed to effect service
by May 4, 2017, dismissal would be recommended; no further extensions of time would be
granted. (Id. at 1–2).

The docket reflects that the Clerk’s office received a request for issuance of summons
from Plaintiff with a letter requesting that the Clerk serve Defendant by certified mail. However,
Plaintiff did not comply with Southern District of Ohio Civil Rule 4.2. Specifically, he failed to
provide service copies, mailing materials, or postage in the envelope. The Clerk’s office thus
issued the summons and returned it by regular mail to Plaintiff with a copy of this Court’s local
rules. To date, Defendant has not been served, and the time for doing so has passed. Based on
the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed.
Procedure on Objections to Report and Recommendation
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those
specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with
supporting authority for the objection(s).

A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further
evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of
the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: May 11, 2017

/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE